What a mixed bag of contradictory statements that come from the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW). We heard recently that MDIFW intends to shift its focus from keeping track of population densities of the state’s deer, moose, bear, and turkey and concentrate more on the health of these designated “big game” animals.

Evidently, Maine’s bald eagles are not “big game” nor are the piping plovers, as we discovered here, and so they deserve to be counted and kept track of in order that biologists can…can…can… better manage them? Because they are NOT going to be hunted?

A recent press release from MDIFW tells us that the Department is undertaking a bald eagle “survey” – something they do every 5 years. The release states: “Biologists are looking to determine the current eagle population; determine whether the eagle population has increased, slowed, or stabilized; evaluate changes in breeding abundance and occupancy rates and compare occupancy rates in traditional eagle nesting territories based on habitat protection.”

Sounds pretty smart to me!

Will this effort tell the biologists the overall health of the bald eagle? It would appear so. So why is MDIFW counting eagles and piping plovers and are not going to place as much effort on counting “big game” species? Is it because eventually, the move will be toward deer, bear, moose, and turkeys not being hunted?

If this focus on health is going to be the new scientismic approach to big game management, then, as the spokesman for MDIFW said, it gives the managers “more flexibility” in how they manage big game. We should then focus on the intent and purpose of “flexibility.”

Flexibility in government bureaucratic management historically has meant a chance to do whatever you want to do with less accountability for what it is you are doing. It also affords a chance to more easily cave into the demands of those whose power can make life uncomfortable. Of course, that “flexibility” is never presented in such a fashion. Instead, it is revealed to the public as some modernistic approach to new science that will make things better.

Unfortunately, this is never the case and will not be in this sense. It appears to me that seeking flexibility, or not having to account for numbers in wildlife as a baseline to successful species management, to go hand in hand with the continued migration of the purpose of wildlife management from supporting sustainable game herds to environmentalism’s non-consumptive over protection, is the real goal here…even if managers and biologists haven’t a clue as to what they are doing and for whom they are doing it.

Think indoctrination institutions!

However, the same press release indicates that perhaps MDIFW will decide whether or not they need to keep counting eagles: “The findings of this study will also be used to re-evaluate the future needs for monitoring of Maine’s breeding eagle population or determine whether to modify the 5-year aerial survey census that has been ongoing since 2008.”

If it is determined that there is no need to continue 5-year counting surveys, does that mean a shift toward general health evaluations instead? And if health evaluations are the focus, like with deer, bear, moose, and turkeys, I want to know how then managers will know how many of these creatures need looking out for? When they know numbers are low, counting is vital to the recovery of the animal. Is this then the new tactic – to wait until numbers of deer, moose, bear, and turkey “seem to be” so low protective measures must be implemented along with 5-year counting surveys? Are we not returning to the beginning stages of fish and game management of 150 years ago?

It would seem there is some middle ground here somewhere and perhaps that is what MDIFW is trying to do. But please, for those of us with a brain that works well enough to know the differences, do tell me that shifting management tactics from numbers to health offers more “flexibility.” I just am not going to buy it.

One has to wonder! With the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) announcing – officially or not – that they are mostly abandoning the concept of keeping track of game populations and replacing it with concentrating on a “healthy” game herd, what bag of tricks they are sitting on that, as quoted, “will give the department more flexibility” in managing that wildlife.

Yesterday, we read that MDIFW is making plans to begin implementation of a digital form of recording game harvests to replace the paper version that some believe to be antiquated. What could go wrong?

Reading the article and trying at the same time get a grasp on what exactly MDIFW is planning to do left me scratching my head. Perhaps poor reporting or a worse explanation..maybe just a dumb reader. My take is that MDIFW plans to work slowly, starting with a “beta” version for the turkey season and then gradually overspreading the rest of the game harvests.

But what, precisely, are they going to do?

It sounds like they intend each tagging station to have a computer with Internet access. Instead of filling out the paperwork and then months later get around to mailing their harvest report to the Department, each game tagged will instantly be reported and sent to MDIFW. Sounds great.

It was quite a few years ago now, that I was told that an employee of the state approached the MDIFW with a proposal to design a computer program that would give the Department any and all data they wanted…instantly. They rejected the plan stating if they did that there would be nothing for biologists to do in the winter sitting in the office. Hmmm.

Depending on the design of the software that will be used to record this harvest data, this could mean that a harvest report should be available within hours of receiving the last tagging from the last station…well, providing that every station is so equipped. It seems that is not the case. If it is impossible to get necessary and needed tagging stations Online, then each of those stations should use the same program and then at the end of the season, download the data to a thumb drive and drop it in the mail – right frigging now!!!

If this is actually how the new harvest reporting system is going to work, I think it will be a great idea and about time. I have always bitched and complained that we have to wait nearly a year from the close of each hunting season to get harvest data. MDIFW blames it on stations refusing to mail in their data in a timely manner. Really? The dog ate my homework? Who is charge around here?

When you read some of the people at certain tagging stations say, “It usually takes me five minutes to tag each animal. I have to fill out the paperwork. It’s a process. It’s a pain.” perhaps MDIFW should consider not giving an inspection station to someone who views the process as a pain. With an attitude like that, it’s probably a “pain” to also gather together all the reports and mail them in. What kind of a “pain” is it going to be for some to go digital?

However, it seems that for some they think the digital form of reporting game harvest should go even farther. “David Trahan, executive director of the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine, said his group is going to introduce legislation that would allow hunters to tag remotely rather than going to tagging stations.”

As much as I have complained about the lateness of game harvest reporting, I wouldn’t and neither should MDIFW, give that important data up simply to get a report to the people more quickly. Regardless of whether or not MDIFW thinks they can utilize more “flexibility” by concentrating on the health of the game herds rather than population numbers, it is still impossible to responsibly manage the wild game without having reliable data which includes numbers – yes, counting populations.

To allow hunters to simply pick up their cellphones/smartphones and register their harvest will spell disaster. States that have done this sort of reporting for years are only now struggling to find a better way of collecting harvest data – with some states moving toward having tagging stations or check stations.

A good software program loaded onto a computer for each tagging station – and one that is more than willing to do the job properly – will take the same data collected at present but make that data available to MDIFW instantly. Risking losing important data by allowing remote registering by the hunter is a move in the wrong direction. The Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine should rethink that position.

Panic is setting in with the environmentalists and animal rights perverts as they learn of two public hearings scheduled to receive input about possibly having limited grizzly bear hunts. Disaster and a slaughter of the grizzly’s population in Idaho will happen, according to bear lovers, because it plans on allowing ONE male bear to be killed…ONE!

“The formula for the number of bears that can be hunted in each state involves a region surrounding Yellowstone National Park called the Demographic Monitoring Area. The number of bears for each state is based on how much land area is in the monitoring area. The number of bears allowed to be hunted in total is based on mortality studies. The result is that this year, Idaho can hunt one male bear and Montana six male bears. Wyoming can hunt 10 male bears and two female bears.”<<<Read More>>>

Officials say they will “educate” hunters on how to identify a male grizzly from a female grizzly. Isn’t it risky to get close enough to a grizzly bear to be able to tell which genitalia they may be sporting? Perhaps if you wait and watch long enough you can watch one of them urinating in order to tell the difference.

But seriously, how difficult is it to identify male and female outside of the obvious? I’ve never hunted them. For that matter, I don’t recall that I’ve ever encountered a grizzly up close and personal. But, I think I could tell a fully mature adult male grizzly from a female. Like with today’s young ‘uns it’s difficult to tell the difference in sexes in immature bears.

Some people simply do not like hunting and trapping or the idea that other people do. Perhaps it’s time to get a life and get over it. There are many things in life that all of us don’t like, but does that mean we spend our time forcing our own idealism onto others? Evidently, that is true in some cases.

I have no issues with another who is opposed to hunting and trapping. I don’t try to get them to change their life over it. I only expect the same respect in return. Did I say respect? Pfffft!

What I do have an issue with is when ignorant and severely misguided excuses are given to defend one’s position on the dislike of the activity. Given the direction the American Society has taken in recent years, there is no guilt association with lying nor is there any need to present honest facts. This practice has become null and void and runs rampant throughout.

Recently two Letters to the Editor in Maine newspapers came from obvious despisers of hunting and trapping. As they go hand in hand, it is safe to say that these same people have a perverse perspective of the roles animals, both wild and domestic, play in man’s existence.

The first letter I’d like to address comes from someone who wants to stop the use of bait as a tool to harvest black bears. For the record, so would I. I don’t like baiting (I’ll save the reasons for another show). However, I can reasonably understand that without baiting the success rate for taking a bear would drop significantly, seriously hampering the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s (MDIFW) ability to maintain the bear population at healthy levels.

But factual information is void in such conversations with animal lovers.

I’ve heard the argument before that baiting unnaturally over-feeds bears, causing a false increase in the number of offspring and that baiting habituates bears to human conditions, i.e. food and smells. The letter writer states: “One of the worst things that can be done to manage a bear population is to artificially increase the amount of available food in the environment and accustom them to human food and smells…”

Under different conditions, this may be true but I don’t think so in this case. If baiting was seriously widespread, in other words, that there actually is an artificial increase in food in the environment (not just at bait stations), throughout the entire habitat of Maine, artificially feeding bears would probably cause a problem.

According to the MDIFW’s website, bears in Maine number as high as 36,000: “Maine’s bear population remained fairly stable through 2005, but has been increasing over the last 5 years and our current estimate is between 24,000 and 36,000 bears.”

We also can find that in 2016 Maine’s bear harvest totaled 2,859. The same data tells us that 68% or 1,936 bears were taken over bait. From previous information found at various sources, it has been estimated that bear hunting success rate is around 30%. For Maine to have harvested 2,859, the number of licensed hunters probably approached 9,000. 62% of all bears harvested was done by out-of-state (guided) hunters.

How does all this translate into the number of bait piles and where they were located geographically? I dunno, but it would certainly appear that the process of baiting may have affected only a very small portion of the bear population, if at all, regardless of how one might fudge the numbers. Even if it were biologically correct to state that artificial feeding increases bear populations, baiting bears does not and cannot have any real effect on the growth of bears.

We also know that bears much prefer natural foods. During high-yield mast crop years, attracting bears to baiting stations is a difficult task to accomplish.

This is a poor argument to use against the use of bait for bears and is always simply a play on the emotions of readers.

The second letter is an excellent example of bunkum and balderdash. The diatribe begins with an attempt at likening bobcat hunting to an unfair advantage for the hunter over the animal because it doesn’t have a helmet, protective padding and shoes….or something.: “Most of us like some kind of sports by either following them, participating in them or both. Whatever ones we prefer, we expect that players or teams be more or less evenly matched in terms of skill and equipment.

We’d protest, for instance, if the tennis players we were rooting for were not allowed to use rackets, and we’d be in an uproar if the quarterbacks and linemen on our favorite team were denied helmets, protective padding and shoes.

Why? Because we require a level playing field and we believe in fairness, as well as giving those we contend against a sporting chance.”

Oh, my! This might deserve the Golden Horse Excrement Award.

Let’s put it this way. If the letter writer wants a “level playing field” wouldn’t that mean that each team would have an even chance, 50-50, of winning? This sounds more like “each participant gets a trophy.” How is it a level playing field when MDIFW has determined that a better than average chance at a bobcat hunter being successful, i.e. winning, runs at not much better than 9%?

But we soon discover the real reason for the whining and complaining: “…we believe that the consequence of defeat should not be the forfeiture of life itself.” Okay, so everyone DOES get a trophy. As I said, I don’t have an issue with people who don’t like to see animals die. I understand this but they don’t understand that the perpetuation of life insists that something must die in order for life to continue. But I digress.

The writer then goes on questioning the MDIFW’s bobcat management practices of which I have no problem. After all, I spend a great deal of time questioning their wildlife management practices. The letter writer states that MDIFW has no idea how many bobcats are in the state of Maine. This may be somewhat true but they do have a system, although it may be antiquated (I haven’t studied the plans and formulas used), where bobcat populations are estimated (like every other game species) and harvest requirements formulated from that information. See the plan here.

(Note: The writer honestly doesn’t see any difference between hunters and trappers legally taking wild animals for various reasons and MDIFW’s prohibition on hunters and trappers killing domestic animals. Where does one go from here?)

Then the writer gets back to the real meat and potatoes as to why he wants bobcat hunting to end: “Hunting bobcats is cruel and abusive.” And let’s not forget it’s “inhumane.”

What the writer rambles on about at this point is mostly pointless to discuss as it becomes obvious the writer places animals at an existence equal to or greater than that of man, giving them the attributes of man: “The word humane is derived from the world [word?] humanity, but until that connection is understood and practiced, what we have is really nothing less than state-sanctioned cruelty…”

The word “humanity” (an Evolution term) first appears in the late 14th century. All definitions and attributes are given to the existence of man…not animals. “Human” and “humane” were used interchangeably for centuries all in reference to characteristics of man…not animals.

Few know that “humane societies” were first established to save drowning people.

Any sense of humaneness pertaining to animals should only be derived from a value-weighted perception of the man toward the animal. It is certainly debatable as to whether or not an animal thinks, acts, and feels the same as a man. It is when we project our own “human” qualities onto animals, we get into some real serious issues.

I really do not understand what the author is saying when he says that “until that connection is understood.” Assuming he means a connection between human and humanity, I fail to see any connection that pertains to the existence of animals.

Not that many animal lovers would care to learn from the Scriptures, but perhaps I can give a better understanding of the role our Creator intended between man and beast (all animals, i.e. birds, fish, mammals, etc.). Genesis 1:26 tells us at the time in which He was going to “create man in our image,” “and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over the beasts, and over all the earth, and over everything that creepeth and moveth on the earth.”

In verse 28, Yaweh instructs Adam to “Bring forth fruit, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the heaven, and over every beast that moveth upon the earth.”

After the Great Flood, Yaweh once again gave Noah and his sons the same instructions. We find them in Genesis 9: 1-5: “Also the fear of you, and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the heaven, upon all that moveth on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: into your hand are they delivered.

3 Everything that moveth and liveth, shall be meat for you: as the green herb, have I given you all things.”

Clearly, the role of the animal toward man’s existence is clearly defined. An animal, of any kind, is not and does not have the same existence as that of man. It was intended for food, the same as plants.

Unfortunately, these verses and others are too often taken out of context to mean that man can do anything he wishes to an animal. Proverbs 12:10 tells us: “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the mercies of the wicked are cruel.” The original Hebrew word for “regardeth” is “yada.” It carries many meanings, mostly in reference to acknowledging “the life of the beast.” It also carries the meaning “to respect.”

Yaweh gave us all the plants and animals of the Earth. After the flood, He told Noah and his sons that animals “shall be meat (food) for you.” His Scripture also tells us to be knowledgeable about the beasts and give them respect. Obviously, this didn’t mean to the point that animals are protected beyond that which might ensure their existence or to the detriment of man.

My advice to the animal lovers and those who hate hunting and trapping, tell us how upset you are because someone is killing an animal, but save the bunkum and balderdash about equal playing fields and “inhumane” treatment of animals.

As an aside: The author quotes someone who says, “Bobcats are worth more for wildlife watching and tracking opportunities than they are as pelts.” Wildlife watching? Tracking? Seriously? I have lived in Maine for going on 66 years. I have “wildlife watched” a bobcat once in my life and that was while visiting a park in Florida. It would appear that this person places little value on the life of a bobcat. Shame.

*Editor’s Note* – This is further proof of the imminent doom of our hunting heritage along with the actual and real scientific approach to wildlife management. “Values” as found the context of this decision by the British Columbia government, is laced with nothing but emotional clap-trap and perverted perceptions of animals as part of our existence. It runs completely counter to the proven practice of the North American Model for Wildlife Management that employs hunting and trapping as a means of controlling populations of wildlife in order to sustain and maintain healthy animals. At the same time, hunters have paid for this animal healthcare and filled their freezers at the same time.

This action by the BC Government is another element of our “post-normal” existence. We can expect more of the same. Whether or not any of us will live long enough to witness the ultimate destruction remains to be seen.

“The British Columbia government is bringing an end to the hunting of grizzly bears throughout the province, Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, and George Heyman, Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy, announced today.

“Through consultations this past fall, we have listened to what British Columbians have to say on this issue and it is abundantly clear that the grizzly hunt is not in line with their values,” (emphasis added)<<<Read More>>>

Just last week I discovered that the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has sent out a questionnaire to Maine bear hunters asking whether or not they would kill two bears if the bag limit for black bears was raised to two bears during the firearms season. At that time my comments were that MDIFW appeared to be finally getting around to doing something about an overgrown state bear population. However, I’m not holding my breath, even though many of you would like me to.

Regardless of what the Advisory Council may suggest and regardless of what the MDIFW Commissioner might propose to establish for a bear hunting season or bag limit, once the special interest groups (these include Maine Guides and outfitters, SAM, etc.) get involved with their favorite legislator, just about anything might be suggested and proposed by the Legislature as to how best to administer the need to kill more bears. (This doesn’t include the animals rights mentals who will spend millions of dollars to make sure no bear is inhumanely killed.)

Listed below, in no particular order, are a handful of what we might see from special interest groups and politicians if a Spring bear hunt or an increase in bag limits is suggested.

If a Spring Bear Hunt were proposed here’s what we might see. The MDIFW would have to come up with a calculated guess as to how many bears they would like to have taken in a Spring Bear Hunt. Let’s say the Commissioner decides 1,000 bears needed to be culled. It is determined, by science or magic, that the success rate might be 30%ish, as this is a number guessed at in the past. That means Maine will need around 3,000 eager licensed bear hunters, hoping to take 1,000 bears.

That means 3,000 Spring Bear Hunt Permits (money). If we administer this as has been done historically, Maine would offer a bear lottery. It would cost each applicant $10.00 (or why not $20.00?)to apply for one of the 3,000 permits. If successfully drawn, each winner would have to purchase a Spring Bear Hunting License. Because it now costs more to “manage” bears in Maine (and conduct a lottery), that “special” bear license is going to cost each hunter $45.00.

But don’t get your hopes too high, even if you don’t mind spending whatever sum of money the government thinks you should have to spend because all these special interests will get a certain number of permits to hand out for votes.

Permits for the Spring Bear Hunt will be divided accordingly among, seniors, juniors, Quakers, Shakers, Muslims, guides, outfitters, veterans, veterans with disabilities, landowners, retired cops, retired politicians (only one term will do), left-handed people, those with green eyes, and anyone who thought up all this foolishness. I’m sure I left many special interests off the list.

What is left are 50 bear permits and MDIFW will auction off 40 of those permits to raise money for feed the hungry, feed those who won’t work, feed those with privilege, etc. 10 of the permits will be set aside for the elite auction where all the cronies gather together to administer political favors and paybacks. Of course, the elites will get the first two weeks of a Spring Bear Hunt all to themselves and will be guided by those guides who yelled and screamed the loudest that they can’t afford a Spring hunt. Guides will be paid with Pittman-Robertson money claiming that money is going to responsible game management.

This is just a small sampling of how the politics of hunting easily overpowers the science.

Could it be? With several years now of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) telling people that the state’s black bear population is getting too big and that bear hunting and trapping harvests have been inadequate to keep populations in check, is the Department actually considering doing something about it?

According to an article in the Bangor Daily News, the MDIFW has emailed out questionnaires asking licensed bear hunters, “If the law allowed you to harvest two bears while hunting, would you attempt to harvest two bears?”

It has been suggested that upping the harvest limit and/or adding a Spring bear hunt might assist the MDIFW in establishing the goals of the department. The Spring bear hunt has been under the control of the Guides and Outfitters for some time dictating to the MDIFW what, when, where and how. Perhaps these two groups have suggested upping the bear harvest limit?

I’ve grown tired over the years listening to the drivel over what to do about the growing number of bears, while at the same time never seeing anything done about it.

If finally, the department is going to do something about it and actually increase the bag limit to two bears while hunting, let’s all give the MDIFW a big ATTA BOY!

The author of the piece that I linked to, suggested, “Perhaps a two bear limit by any method or combined methods would be a feasible alternative.” I agree, however, if things go as they have in the past, the guides and outfitters will dictate to the MDIFW how things will run.

Pennsylvania had a bear hunting season. It was a four-day rifle/gun season that began on November 18, 2017. One week later, the fish and game department sent out press releases with information about the bear hunt. Not only in one week’s time did the government provide the number of bears harvested, they also provided in which counties/towns/wildlife management units the bears were taken, the weights of the biggest bears taken, and the names of the hunters who harvested the bears.

In Maine, a state that brags upon itself as having the greatest black bear population in the country, along with the greatest black bear management team in the country, once took over a year to release any bear hunting harvest information. They no longer have that problem. They simply removed all game animal harvest information from their website and apparently have no plans to provide taxpayers and license holders with any information about deer, bear, moose, and turkey harvests.

With today’s technology, some states have taken advantage of the access to instant information while others, like Maine, seem to be headed in the opposite direction. Perhaps the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) has something to hide.

All hands at MDIFW seem eager to count piping plovers and brown-nosed bats, but when it comes to stroking those who pay their salaries (license buyers) it seems they are pissing on our boots and telling us it’s raining out.

Once upon a time, men exploited game animals to a point where it was feared that sustaining a population was becoming a problem. Recognizing that this was not a good thing, as well as irresponsible, man set out to correct the problem. Part of the resolution crafted what today is known as the North American Model of Wildlife Management, a tried a proven activity that has provided much of this country with ample wildlife for all to enjoy.

Over time, perverse behavior, prevalent in all totalitarians, began to change things and to change them for the worse. Unfortunately, those demanding the change, embroiled in their new romance with animal perversion, don’t see the error of their ways. It’s sick behavior really.

Void of actual science, replaced by “Voodoo Science” (scientism) and “Romance Biology,” these perverse totalitarians set out to “change the way we approach wildlife management.” One of those changes is to discuss (write about) animals as though they were persons. Animals are not people. Animals are animals, and while it is in the best interest of man to manage our wildlife species FOR OUR BENEFIT, until I can sit down with a bear, have a conversation and drink a cup of coffee, that bear remains nothing but an animal.

This morning I was reading a letter to the editor found in a Maine newspaper. It is a classic example of the exemplification of animal perversion – the product of misguided teachings including the repeated dissing of man.

The editorial is about how bear hunting is a terrible thing and that bears are “victims.” I have taken the time to go through the short piece and share with readers the many, many uses of pronouns, adverbs, adjectives, and nouns that should only be used when discussing human beings and not animals.

There is something very wrong with a society that perverts the created existence and purpose of animals, while at the same time having a very low opinion of his fellow man. One has to wonder what such a person thinks of themselves.